Whether a notarized police-authored criminal complaint, executed without judicial oversight and misrepresented as a valid arrest warrant, violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by enabling seizure absent judicial authorization

1. Police Complaint as Arrest Warrant Whether a notarized police-authored criminal complaint, executed without judicial oversight and misrepresented as a valid arrest warrant, violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by enabling seizure absent judicial authorization. • Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) • Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) 2. Arrest Without Judicial Probable Cause Whether an arrest executed solely on a police complaint, without a judge ’s finding of probable cause, violates the Fourth Amendment under Gerstein v. Pugh and renders subsequent detention unconstitutional. • Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) • Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) 3. Judicial Omission After Arrest and Jurisdictional Void Whether the absence of a judicial probable cause determination following arrest —as evidenced by an unsigned order finding no probable cause as required under Texas law—violates due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, and whether Texas courts retained jurisdiction to detain or convict Petitioner absent a valid judicial finding of probable cause. • Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) — judicial determination of probable cause is required for detention. • County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) — probable cause must be determined within 48 hours of arrest. • Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) —ADA Title II violations implicate Fourteenth Amendment protections. • Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) — procedural due process violations are actionable even without physical injury. 4. Indiana ’s Alteration of Texas Conviction Whether Indiana courts and officials may lawfully alter or reclassify Texas judicial records and statutes, fabricating a child-based conviction from an adult-only adjudication, in violation of the Full -1 Faith and Credit Clause, the Ex Post Facto Clause, and the Double Jeopardy Clause. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) • Milwaukee County v. M.E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268 (1935) • Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942) • Underwriters Nat’l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina, 455 U.S. 691 (1982) • Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) • Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) 5. Forensic Evidence and Duplicate Convictions Whether a conviction may stand when forensic evidence establishes that a single individual with black hair committed the crime, and Texas courts had already entered a conviction against another defendant six months earlier for the same one-person offense. • Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) — actual innocence claims trigger federal review. • Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) — innocence-based habeas relief requires gateway review. • Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) — concealment of material facts invalidates convictions. • Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935) — use of false or misleading evidence violates due process. • Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433 (1940) — void judgments are legal nullities. -2